ORDER

1. Looking to the similitude of controversy involved these batch of writ appeals are decided by the common order.

2. The facts from the case W.A.858/2021 are taken up for disposal of the appeals.

3. Petitioner, a Patwari, has approached this Court taking exception to the impugned transfer order dated 31st of August, 2021 transferring him from Tehsil Morena (City) to Tehsil Ambah, District Morena. The primary ground raised before the learned Single Judge and before this Court relates to the competency of the Joint Collector to pass the impugned transfer order. Learned counsel relies upon section 18 and section 104 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to contend that unless the State Government issues a notification specifying the nature of power to be exercised by Assistant Collectors, Joint Collectors/Deputy Collectors no functions much less that of transfer can be performed by any such authority. Further section 104 contemplates that Collector shall appoint Patwari in each Halka for the purposes of carrying out the provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. There is no notification in State Government empowering Joint Collector to transfer Patwaris.

4. Per contra, Shri Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents contend that reliance upon section 18 and section 104 are misplaced. In fact, the instant case relates to the transfer of Patwari and is under the realm of administration, whereas the provisions under section 18 and section 104 are engrafted in MPLRC Code for carrying out the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. There is no provision under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code providing any specific authority for effecting transfer of Patwaris.

5. That apart, the Collector even otherwise is empowered to authorize any Deputy Collector, Joint Collector or Assistant Collector to perform the duties of Sub Divisional Officer under section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code by way of an administrative order. Undisputedly, the Joint Collector is the superior authority having administrative control over the area concerned and performs duties on behalf of the Collector. Regulation of services of subordinates for optimized yield vests with the administration. The alleged claim of competency of a Joint Collector in the context of transfer is misplaced for want of any specific bar either under the Act or the rules relevant for the said purpose.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that only constitutional protection for an employee against the action related to dismissal, removal and reduction in rank is contained in article 311 of the Constitution of India which contemplates that no other authority lower than the appointing authority can take action against an employee in relation to aforesaid penalties. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that no exception can be taken to the impugned order of learned Single Judge having found no fault with the authority of Joint Collector to transfer the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions advanced by Shri Mody, learned counsel for the respondents/State and Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the private parties. Section 18 empowers the State Government to issue notification for the purpose of exercise of powers by Joint Collector, Deputy Collector and Assistant Collector to carry out the objects and functions under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. As such reliance thereupon is totally misplaced in the context of present controversy of transfer of Patwari within the District by the Joint Collector. True that a Collector appoints Patwari to perform duties over the area concerned as contemplated under section 104, at the same time the powers of the Collectors can always be delegated to the Assistant Collector, Joint Collector and